A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
A Producer's Medium - for Comm 138A
Why did television emerge as a producer's medium and not a writer's (theater) or director's (film)?
20 comments:
Anonymous
said...
In my opinion, this difference comes from the format of television itself. A play or a movie is designed as a single entity. When you sit down to watch a movie or play, you are (usually) committing to watching the entire story unfold in one sitting. Because of this, one writer creates the entire script, and a director oversees the entire production. The writer or director controls how the story is told from start to finish. In television, this is not the case. Each episode has its own plot, but it is not (usually) designed to stand alone. Each episode is merely a part of the show's overarching storyline. And as is often the case, every episode is not written by the same writer or directed by the same director. These roles can be assigned to different people over the course of a show's run, or even over the course of a single season. As long as new directors and writers keep the script and direction more or less consistent with previous episodes, most viewers have no reason to object. Producers, on the other hand, are the more consistent figures in the production process. They oversee the broader elements of the show, so they gain more importance than the easily replaceable writers and directors. While they might not write scripts themselves, or direct actors on set, they oversee the people who do those things, and set the tone and direction of the show as a whole rather than focus on each individual episode, although they may choose to be more or less involved in these specific aspects as they see fit.
In this sense, I do see quite a difference between film and television. I feel that film very much so has it's storyline written in stone and knows exactly what is happening from beginning to end. With television, I don't think that this is always the case. Yes, of course, there is thought of where the show is going, but often times we hear of shows making extra seasons because of great audience reaction or shows altering their storyline to what to viewers want. We also see multiple writers for television shows a lot of the time, whether that being from episode to episode or season to season. Although we do watch television for the storyline, I think a lot of the time we are watching for the characters who we have learned to love (or hate) throughout seasons, and when it comes down to this the style in which the show has is important to hold onto. In movies, I would say we watch more for the storyline as we do not know the characters per say until we watch the movie. With that being said, I think television is more of a producer's medium because there are a more stable piece in the puzzle. They are the ones who control for the feel and style of the show. Writers and directors change often but you can still keep the same flow of the series going.
As mentioned in the prompt, theater is a writer's medium, film is a director's medium and television is a producer's medium. I think a big reason to explain this phenomena is the element of control. When it comes to film, the director is arguably one of the most important people on the set. While the director is drawing upon the words that someone else has written, the audience is absorbing the film based on the director's vision. Everything that goes into a movie goes through the director. With the addition of special effects, film is becoming much more of a visual experience as opposed to an auditory experience. Theater can be magical, but the director and visual experience seems far less significant during the staging of a musical as opposed to the book, music and lyrics. Theater is a place where words are truly appreciated. When people walk away from a musical or play, they are often humming the words or discussing dialogue that touched them. When people walk away from a film, they are discussing the special effects or the performance of the actors. Producers are able to take the medium of television and expand their vision over a series of episodes for many, many years. The mediums of film and theater do not allow for continued storylines or dramatic character development. Producers turn to television because they have a story that cannot be resolved or explained in less than two hours. Producers do have a large amount of influence on the direction of their television show, but in many cases, television is a group effort between writers, actors and the producer.
Like what others have said before, I believe TV emerged as a producers medium because of the format of television. Since TV is a medium that has new outputs every week, as opposed to a film that has only one output, there is a need for a more constant presence. Writers and directors of TV programs can change from episode to episode, more commonly with directors. This creates a need for someone to oversee the entire TV program, as opposed to a single episode. Also, from a financial perspective, since TV programs production runs longer than a movies production, (for a successful show) there is a need for someone to maintain relationships with the financiers and the network. A job a writer or director of a single episode would not do. TV as opposed to film is much more fluid and changing, and therefore needs someone to manage all aspects over the entire duration of the program. But I also believe that there is a lot of overlap today with the writer, director and producer. For example, a show like Girls was created by Lena Dunham, who also still writes and often directs episodes while also being one of the executive producers. I believe the role of writer and producer in todays TV is often played by the same person. There are also many different styles of producing, and a producer on the set of one show may have drastically different responsibilities than the producer on another show.
The importance of the producer's role emerged with the format of television. It's my understanding that TV revenue relies almost solely on money from advertisers (especially before the internet and the popularity of TV merchandise). Since advertising was the biggest source of revenue, they needed producers to ensure the show was going to continue to garner a television viewing. This comes with consistency and an expanse of knowledge about the television show itself as well as the people watching. Different producers play different roles within television shows, whether it's budgeting, acting as showrunner, or writing, but they are really the only stable part of each show. Different episodes of the same show have different directors and writers, so there isn't a lot of agency there. With all of the components that go along with TV, each episode can be completely different than the last. Take the example of "The Office." J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon directed a couple episodes of The Office, but very few people know that. A slew of successful comedy writers helped write the show, including Mindy Kaling and B.J. Novak, who also got producers credits for the show. But the show's main producer was Greg Daniels, who helped produce every single episode. Producers are in charge of making sure, with all of the shifting parts, new episodes, and different directors, the style of the show remains the same. Since TV shows can go on for years, actors sometimes move on to better projects, writers quit or go on strike, but the producers keep the show running.
Television began as a producer's medium because as Walt Disney first discovered, it provided an alternative to the restrictive movie studio system. Television allows a producer a bit more leeway to make short term decisions (per episode) rather than decisions that will impact an entire film. Producers are able to oversee all aspects of of production including casting (actors, writers, directors), budgets, and contracts. For television, episodes have its own plot, own directors, which makes things different than a movie where one director is looking over an overarching film.
Television is definitely more of a producer's medium in today's day and age. For example, Shonda Rhimes and Ryan Murphy who are two of the biggest showrunners in television. They have changed the landscape of the industry for the better. Television has become the place where people from film are moving to because they can work with producers who are searching for more creative controls that are not happening in film due to colossal budgets and crazy directors, which they can control in television.
Having different directors and writers throughout the course of a show's season or entire run as a television series allows diversification of content and style. Since television is 30 minutes or 1 hour of screen time with one episode viewing, television shows and stations can test out what type of content is received best by their audiences. This caters to having multiple writers to work with and changing directors to create the best product that will earn a network revenue. Since they can develop the craft along time, it makes sense to change these creative leaders in the process out to have the best outcome.
Since producers oversee the entire production process of a television program, it is important to maintain consistency with this since they can evaluate what aspects are doing well and what needs to be altered with different ratings and reception. They act as the managers of the parts that need to be adjusted to deliver the plot and style of a show consistent with the image. Because television differs from film in that each episode can be its own entity, producers act as the valuable figurehead in production while writers and directors can be switched up at any time.
I think, creatively, television is much more of a group effort. There is a room full of writers and many other influences. I think the producer is so much more important to maintain the vision of a single show. A producer can make sure a show reaches its creative potential but also stays within the networks wishes, maintaining good ratings and keeping advertisers happy. There is so much more fluctuation in storyline, actors, and contracts in television. A producers job becomes much more important when dealing with the ongoing nature of television, as opposed to the start to finish nature of film.
The style of certain television shows is so uniform that changing out a director or editor would make no different, especially in 3 camera sitcoms. No one wants to see their favorite show take huge, creative directing risks half way through the season. It should be invisible and consistent. A producer makes sure that, even in times of transition, the show stays on schedule. Production waits for no one; writers need to be constantly laying down script. Producers, man.
“Autonomy” was the word that stood out to me the most when first reading the article on Light’s Diamond Jubilee. Selznick’s path to television production was a result of his overly independent and incessant interference within the division of labor in his filmmaking process, and in conjunction to our conversation last class about the visibility/transparency of commercialization, I realized that the path from theater to film and now to television is guided by this loss of “autonomy” when we look at television as a producer’s medium as opposed to that of a writer’s or director’s.
For a playwright, what happens when he or she writes the play is a contained creative process that may draw on outside sources for inspiration or assistance, but is largely created through the playwright. Even when the play is taken to the stage, even the stage director’s adaptation of the work will be one that is one way of interpreting the playwright’s original artistic vision.
For a filmmaker, the process becomes much more collaborative as the production process involves many parts and people working together. Even so, since the entirety of the work is contained in that one film, the primary influence on the director’s autonomy over the piece would be from their sources of money and their resources, and by the time it hits the box offices, there is nothing that can be done to “change” the film to suit its viewers’ tastes. If audiences don’t do well, then it simply doesn’t do well in the theaters. It gets bad reviews from film critics online and in the paper. But the content of the film itself will not be changed from the director’s original vision for it. The only way I imagine this being different is if the film is a part of a franchise, and will comprise a part of a longer series (i.e. Avengers, Star Wars, Kung Fu Panda, etc.), and thus allows the production crew and the director to take into account what audiences liked or didn’t like in the preceding films.
For the television producer, as others have already stated, that environment and that dependence on viewer ratings and feedback on a television series is crucial simply because if a show does poorly, then it gets cut. As a result, the creative process is halted altogether unless the show is renewed. In order to stay afloat, a series will often evolve, whether that involves a process of getting new cast members, hiring a team of different writers, and so forth. But the producer is the one that stays at the head of the show. It often “belongs” to that producer more than the others involved in the production.
One thing that has been brought up multiple times is the nature of television series as inevitably subject to change based on viewers and views, comments and criticism. Is our conversation limited primarily to series and shows that are or were ongoing? Where do TV movies fall into the spectrum? (I’m thinking of, for example, those TV movies by BBC that are broadcast in three to four parts/episodes and are often filmed completely before broadcast.)
It makes sense to think that Television is a producer's medium, theater is a writer's medium and film, a director's medium. Since television is such an ongoing medium, it requires a constant overseeing of all aspects. New episodes has to be written by the writers and the directors are not always the same episode to episode. The financial aspects also must be dealt with and there are so many moving parts that a person to oversee all components is crucial. It is also important that this person is able to maintain a positive relationship with all these different aspects in order to keep this machine well oiled and consistency can help maintain these relationships. The television's producer is someone who has to be a renaissance man in all aspects of the word. They oversee the entire production process of the show and often find themselves in the writer's room, on set during production and dealing with the budgetary and financial aspects of the show. Because of the ongoing nature of television, I think it emerged as such a producer's medium as there are many aspects that need to be overseen for a long period of time and having a producer who is invested in all of the show is important in order to keep all aspects of production of a television show afloat.
Television is a producer's medium for several reasons. As many people have already stated, the whole structure of television lends itself to be overseen by someone with a goal and vision, while leaving some of the more creative jobs to writers, editors, and directors. Those roles can be taken by various individuals; it is very rare for most episodes of a TV show to have the same director. A director on television doesn't have as much freedom, per se, as they do in film because they have to maintain the flow and style of the show. Film directors can often help with the writing process, whereas writing and directing are often separate in TV. Furthermore, the producer is more of the "business person" when it comes to television production, in terms of making sure the show stays under budget, acquiring sponsors to cover costs, managing contracts, and so on. They are in charge of seeing a season of a show from start to finish by making sure each episode is completed and leads up to the season finale however many more episodes later. Directors and writers may come and go, but producers, usually, are constant and see the TV show to the end, whether that is cancellation, syndication, etc. Of course, there are many different types of producers in television, and some may even help write or direct, but that just shows how important producers are to the TV ecosystem and helps illuminate how television emerged as a producer's medium.
I think it is perfect the way it is. First and foremost, I think television emerged as a producer's medium and not a director's or writers simply because that is the only way it could function. For instance, television is very different from movies/films/plays/etc. Television and all these types of showings have stories and plot lines that they are trying to get across to the viewer. For television, I think they try and get their message to their viewers with a different approach as to the others I mentioned above. In many cases, television shows have ongoing seasons, which show you a single plot per episode (sometimes more) and they try and leave you with that message until you watch the new episode (usually a week later)- so they have to lure you in.
For movies, I think it is very different because they have roughly 2 hours or so to get their whole message through and I think it can only be one director because if there were more than one director, their ideas would clash and make the movie's message less clear (television shows have various directors- either per season or per show). So, I think television emerged as a producer's medium simply because it was the only choice.
Television is such an inclusive medium, making it necessary for someone to over look and be involved with aspects of every season and every episode as well. Because there are so many elements that make up a television series it is important for someone to preserve the ending vision or idea of what the show is supposed to be. This really lends itself to the producer who is able to do many jobs while keeping the end vision in sight. The reading says that television also give the producer a chance to not get caught up in the writing or direction while focusing on the vision of the show while simultaneously analyzing what content is best suited for its audience. Television is definitely a producers medium in that way.
Echoing a few of my classmates above, I feel like the reason why directors or writers are not the primary medium for television is because there is a fundamental difference in how television is created, and what its overarching goals are. To be more specific, whereas film and theater aim to tell a definitive story from start to finish, and often have much longer deadlines and budgets to work with, a television show needs to run like clockwork, meeting its much shorter deadlines efficiently and still contributing to an overarching plot as the season goes along. You're answering to very different expectations from your audience, studio, and sponsors.
Just take David Selznick's transition from film producer to television producer as an example. Selznick was a producer who believed the producer had to be an integral part of every aspect of production. He oversaw everything from each line of the script to the costuming. But even though he realized the danger of such an "artisanal approach", as his constant meddling with the script often kept his costs up and deadlines unmet, I believe his approach to television was still too overbearing. He wished for it to be an artistic medium for him to impart his film-making vision on, but underestimated the manpower and automation needed to keep a television program running.
Selznick never made another television show after "Light's Diamond Jubilee". Meanwhile, Walt Disney was successful in creating his first show, "Disneyland", a low-budget, "total merchandising" series, and took off from there, with other studios following suit. At the end of the day, the demands of a television series are extremely different than a film or play. The scheduling inflexibility of a live production forces you to keep moving and often take less risks from episode to episode, because there is no behind-the-scenes time for trial and error. You are constantly under the pressure that your show may be canceled, as you have to appeal to your ratings and keep your sponsors satisfied. It's not that Selznick's opinion about television needing to come from "individual producers of talent...not from assembly-line machines" was wrong--as we can see on television today, a producer's individual talent can completely alter a show for the better. It just isn't realistic given the demands and business model of television. That's why a producer who can keep a show running on target with both its schedule and overall plot, despite interchanging directors, DPs, etc., is best suited for spearheading a show.
I think the production process of movies and television is vastly different and the producer and director in each medium plays different roles as well. For television, the producer plays a heavier role than a producer in movies. It is their role to oversee the production and to make sure that the show follows its original intent or purpose. For television, the producer is allowed to separate themselves from the work of the director while at the same time overseeing the direction and outcome that the director proceeds in. Since the span of television series is much longer than a film, there needs to be a person to oversee the overarching goal or outcome of each series over the course of the production. There is a heavy influence of a producer's role in the making of a series because it is their duty to make sure that the series stays on track in regards to it's original story and intent. That is why television is much more a producer's medium than anything else.
In TV, the producers are the ones who have the most control. They decide who writes the script and how it is directed, and this causes everyone to attribute the success of shows to producers. Like everyone has mentioned, TV’s format involves long periods of time and multiple moving pieces, therefore the producer is one of the only constants in TV. This autonomy of the producer is thus comparable to the independence that a film director has, because a film follows the director’s vision. I also think this could be a reason why TV isn’t viewed as being as artistic as films, because a producer seems to be less of a creative roll and more of a business person managing ratings, cast members, and making sure the audience and all other stakeholders are happy.
I believe television turned into a producers medium because of the continuous change of plots and themes for the current audience's desire. Movies and plays are on repetition. Unlike television shows it takes years to film and be released and to hope the message of the movie gets across. Television can change each episode with a new message each time. This allows the audience to be on their toes more and request for more. Messages are more easily understood because the shows are quicker and don't have confusing twists as often. Television can also change to fit a certain audience or change with it's audience while movies have to be more broad to respect their larger audience. Movies also don't last long because people get tired of the repetition. They have seen it already, received the message and now want to move on. Television allows the complete opposite an ongoing desire for more.
As mentioned by others above, the main reason television is a producer's medium rather than a writer's or director's medium is primarily because it's so dynamic. While most shows will have an overarching story or premise that guides the show throughout it's seasons, each individual episode can have different writers or directors. Because television shows are much longer investments than movies or theater productions, audiences need more variety in what they're receiving. These new styles and viewpoints in episodic television is what helps to keep the show fresh and bring in more viewers while at the same time, it can also make the show risk being inconsistent. A primary example of a show where the change in writer brought down it's quality and ratings is Dexter. Following the fifth season, there was a writer change and many longtime fans of the show were not pleased with where it went. On the flip side, for a producer, they don't have to worry about the artistic vision so much as to them, they just really have to focus on how it's going to be made. They deal with the actors and deal with budget and contracts. Once they lay out their original idea or plan and it gets picked up, they're good.
When looking at why television is a producer's medium, I think it's important to look back at the birth of the medium itself. Moving away from vaudeville shows and into large, spectacular productions, the entire industry had a lot to figure out about what TV would end up being. As the film industry and contract laws changed in the late 1940's/early 1950's, studios had a lot of space to work with and needed a new way to make money. Studios started making money as production entities, but put the financial bourdon/risk on the producer. Just as app creators shoulder the risk in today's uncharted tech world, television producers became the idea pushers, leaving networks risk free.
I think the reason television seems to be a producer's medium, as opposed to a writer's or a director's, is clear when you look at the development of a cultural approach to what many consider to be the most popular media art form. Generally, it seems like television tends to overvalue what's popular and typically overlooks the more artsy end of the narrative. The roles of big players like directors and writers have kind of been minimized in recent years, and there isn't really a lot of discussion about the creative nature of work itself that goes on in the medium, like in film. Its fairly obvious that the producer is responsible for taking on the sort of central creative and administrative role in the commercial television workplace. Which, generally translates into the idea that the producer is the one working with the individuals or collaborative teams who create the series, as well as deals with the networks and production companies, and most importantly, hires and supervises the creative personnel. This is important for the reason that this includes the directors, and writers, who can be switched in and out per episode or per season, or basically anytime, while the overall production itself must remain consistent (under the direction of one producer) as mentioned in the comment above referencing the multiple directors and writers for the show "Dexter". Essentially, because television production is such a complex process and basically demands constant maintenance of the narrative operation by the producers, they ultimately become the most essential/critical player in any successful series.
20 comments:
In my opinion, this difference comes from the format of television itself. A play or a movie is designed as a single entity. When you sit down to watch a movie or play, you are (usually) committing to watching the entire story unfold in one sitting. Because of this, one writer creates the entire script, and a director oversees the entire production. The writer or director controls how the story is told from start to finish.
In television, this is not the case. Each episode has its own plot, but it is not (usually) designed to stand alone. Each episode is merely a part of the show's overarching storyline. And as is often the case, every episode is not written by the same writer or directed by the same director. These roles can be assigned to different people over the course of a show's run, or even over the course of a single season. As long as new directors and writers keep the script and direction more or less consistent with previous episodes, most viewers have no reason to object.
Producers, on the other hand, are the more consistent figures in the production process. They oversee the broader elements of the show, so they gain more importance than the easily replaceable writers and directors. While they might not write scripts themselves, or direct actors on set, they oversee the people who do those things, and set the tone and direction of the show as a whole rather than focus on each individual episode, although they may choose to be more or less involved in these specific aspects as they see fit.
In this sense, I do see quite a difference between film and television. I feel that film very much so has it's storyline written in stone and knows exactly what is happening from beginning to end. With television, I don't think that this is always the case. Yes, of course, there is thought of where the show is going, but often times we hear of shows making extra seasons because of great audience reaction or shows altering their storyline to what to viewers want. We also see multiple writers for television shows a lot of the time, whether that being from episode to episode or season to season.
Although we do watch television for the storyline, I think a lot of the time we are watching for the characters who we have learned to love (or hate) throughout seasons, and when it comes down to this the style in which the show has is important to hold onto.
In movies, I would say we watch more for the storyline as we do not know the characters per say until we watch the movie.
With that being said, I think television is more of a producer's medium because there are a more stable piece in the puzzle. They are the ones who control for the feel and style of the show. Writers and directors change often but you can still keep the same flow of the series going.
As mentioned in the prompt, theater is a writer's medium, film is a director's medium and television is a producer's medium. I think a big reason to explain this phenomena is the element of control. When it comes to film, the director is arguably one of the most important people on the set. While the director is drawing upon the words that someone else has written, the audience is absorbing the film based on the director's vision. Everything that goes into a movie goes through the director. With the addition of special effects, film is becoming much more of a visual experience as opposed to an auditory experience. Theater can be magical, but the director and visual experience seems far less significant during the staging of a musical as opposed to the book, music and lyrics. Theater is a place where words are truly appreciated. When people walk away from a musical or play, they are often humming the words or discussing dialogue that touched them. When people walk away from a film, they are discussing the special effects or the performance of the actors. Producers are able to take the medium of television and expand their vision over a series of episodes for many, many years. The mediums of film and theater do not allow for continued storylines or dramatic character development. Producers turn to television because they have a story that cannot be resolved or explained in less than two hours. Producers do have a large amount of influence on the direction of their television show, but in many cases, television is a group effort between writers, actors and the producer.
Like what others have said before, I believe TV emerged as a producers medium because of the format of television. Since TV is a medium that has new outputs every week, as opposed to a film that has only one output, there is a need for a more constant presence. Writers and directors of TV programs can change from episode to episode, more commonly with directors. This creates a need for someone to oversee the entire TV program, as opposed to a single episode. Also, from a financial perspective, since TV programs production runs longer than a movies production, (for a successful show) there is a need for someone to maintain relationships with the financiers and the network. A job a writer or director of a single episode would not do. TV as opposed to film is much more fluid and changing, and therefore needs someone to manage all aspects over the entire duration of the program. But I also believe that there is a lot of overlap today with the writer, director and producer. For example, a show like Girls was created by Lena Dunham, who also still writes and often directs episodes while also being one of the executive producers. I believe the role of writer and producer in todays TV is often played by the same person. There are also many different styles of producing, and a producer on the set of one show may have drastically different responsibilities than the producer on another show.
The importance of the producer's role emerged with the format of television. It's my understanding that TV revenue relies almost solely on money from advertisers (especially before the internet and the popularity of TV merchandise). Since advertising was the biggest source of revenue, they needed producers to ensure the show was going to continue to garner a television viewing. This comes with consistency and an expanse of knowledge about the television show itself as well as the people watching. Different producers play different roles within television shows, whether it's budgeting, acting as showrunner, or writing, but they are really the only stable part of each show. Different episodes of the same show have different directors and writers, so there isn't a lot of agency there. With all of the components that go along with TV, each episode can be completely different than the last. Take the example of "The Office." J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon directed a couple episodes of The Office, but very few people know that. A slew of successful comedy writers helped write the show, including Mindy Kaling and B.J. Novak, who also got producers credits for the show. But the show's main producer was Greg Daniels, who helped produce every single episode. Producers are in charge of making sure, with all of the shifting parts, new episodes, and different directors, the style of the show remains the same. Since TV shows can go on for years, actors sometimes move on to better projects, writers quit or go on strike, but the producers keep the show running.
Television began as a producer's medium because as Walt Disney first discovered, it provided an alternative to the restrictive movie studio system. Television allows a producer a bit more leeway to make short term decisions (per episode) rather than decisions that will impact an entire film. Producers are able to oversee all aspects of of production including casting (actors, writers, directors), budgets, and contracts. For television, episodes have its own plot, own directors, which makes things different than a movie where one director is looking over an overarching film.
Television is definitely more of a producer's medium in today's day and age. For example, Shonda Rhimes and Ryan Murphy who are two of the biggest showrunners in television. They have changed the landscape of the industry for the better. Television has become the place where people from film are moving to because they can work with producers who are searching for more creative controls that are not happening in film due to colossal budgets and crazy directors, which they can control in television.
Having different directors and writers throughout the course of a show's season or entire run as a television series allows diversification of content and style. Since television is 30 minutes or 1 hour of screen time with one episode viewing, television shows and stations can test out what type of content is received best by their audiences. This caters to having multiple writers to work with and changing directors to create the best product that will earn a network revenue. Since they can develop the craft along time, it makes sense to change these creative leaders in the process out to have the best outcome.
Since producers oversee the entire production process of a television program, it is important to maintain consistency with this since they can evaluate what aspects are doing well and what needs to be altered with different ratings and reception. They act as the managers of the parts that need to be adjusted to deliver the plot and style of a show consistent with the image. Because television differs from film in that each episode can be its own entity, producers act as the valuable figurehead in production while writers and directors can be switched up at any time.
I think, creatively, television is much more of a group effort. There is a room full of writers and many other influences. I think the producer is so much more important to maintain the vision of a single show. A producer can make sure a show reaches its creative potential but also stays within the networks wishes, maintaining good ratings and keeping advertisers happy. There is so much more fluctuation in storyline, actors, and contracts in television. A producers job becomes much more important when dealing with the ongoing nature of television, as opposed to the start to finish nature of film.
The style of certain television shows is so uniform that changing out a director or editor would make no different, especially in 3 camera sitcoms. No one wants to see their favorite show take huge, creative directing risks half way through the season. It should be invisible and consistent. A producer makes sure that, even in times of transition, the show stays on schedule. Production waits for no one; writers need to be constantly laying down script. Producers, man.
“Autonomy” was the word that stood out to me the most when first reading the article on Light’s Diamond Jubilee. Selznick’s path to television production was a result of his overly independent and incessant interference within the division of labor in his filmmaking process, and in conjunction to our conversation last class about the visibility/transparency of commercialization, I realized that the path from theater to film and now to television is guided by this loss of “autonomy” when we look at television as a producer’s medium as opposed to that of a writer’s or director’s.
For a playwright, what happens when he or she writes the play is a contained creative process that may draw on outside sources for inspiration or assistance, but is largely created through the playwright. Even when the play is taken to the stage, even the stage director’s adaptation of the work will be one that is one way of interpreting the playwright’s original artistic vision.
For a filmmaker, the process becomes much more collaborative as the production process involves many parts and people working together. Even so, since the entirety of the work is contained in that one film, the primary influence on the director’s autonomy over the piece would be from their sources of money and their resources, and by the time it hits the box offices, there is nothing that can be done to “change” the film to suit its viewers’ tastes. If audiences don’t do well, then it simply doesn’t do well in the theaters. It gets bad reviews from film critics online and in the paper. But the content of the film itself will not be changed from the director’s original vision for it. The only way I imagine this being different is if the film is a part of a franchise, and will comprise a part of a longer series (i.e. Avengers, Star Wars, Kung Fu Panda, etc.), and thus allows the production crew and the director to take into account what audiences liked or didn’t like in the preceding films.
For the television producer, as others have already stated, that environment and that dependence on viewer ratings and feedback on a television series is crucial simply because if a show does poorly, then it gets cut. As a result, the creative process is halted altogether unless the show is renewed. In order to stay afloat, a series will often evolve, whether that involves a process of getting new cast members, hiring a team of different writers, and so forth. But the producer is the one that stays at the head of the show. It often “belongs” to that producer more than the others involved in the production.
One thing that has been brought up multiple times is the nature of television series as inevitably subject to change based on viewers and views, comments and criticism. Is our conversation limited primarily to series and shows that are or were ongoing? Where do TV movies fall into the spectrum? (I’m thinking of, for example, those TV movies by BBC that are broadcast in three to four parts/episodes and are often filmed completely before broadcast.)
It makes sense to think that Television is a producer's medium, theater is a writer's medium and film, a director's medium. Since television is such an ongoing medium, it requires a constant overseeing of all aspects. New episodes has to be written by the writers and the directors are not always the same episode to episode. The financial aspects also must be dealt with and there are so many moving parts that a person to oversee all components is crucial. It is also important that this person is able to maintain a positive relationship with all these different aspects in order to keep this machine well oiled and consistency can help maintain these relationships. The television's producer is someone who has to be a renaissance man in all aspects of the word. They oversee the entire production process of the show and often find themselves in the writer's room, on set during production and dealing with the budgetary and financial aspects of the show. Because of the ongoing nature of television, I think it emerged as such a producer's medium as there are many aspects that need to be overseen for a long period of time and having a producer who is invested in all of the show is important in order to keep all aspects of production of a television show afloat.
Television is a producer's medium for several reasons. As many people have already stated, the whole structure of television lends itself to be overseen by someone with a goal and vision, while leaving some of the more creative jobs to writers, editors, and directors. Those roles can be taken by various individuals; it is very rare for most episodes of a TV show to have the same director. A director on television doesn't have as much freedom, per se, as they do in film because they have to maintain the flow and style of the show. Film directors can often help with the writing process, whereas writing and directing are often separate in TV. Furthermore, the producer is more of the "business person" when it comes to television production, in terms of making sure the show stays under budget, acquiring sponsors to cover costs, managing contracts, and so on. They are in charge of seeing a season of a show from start to finish by making sure each episode is completed and leads up to the season finale however many more episodes later. Directors and writers may come and go, but producers, usually, are constant and see the TV show to the end, whether that is cancellation, syndication, etc. Of course, there are many different types of producers in television, and some may even help write or direct, but that just shows how important producers are to the TV ecosystem and helps illuminate how television emerged as a producer's medium.
I think it is perfect the way it is. First and foremost, I think television emerged as a producer's medium and not a director's or writers simply because that is the only way it could function. For instance, television is very different from movies/films/plays/etc. Television and all these types of showings have stories and plot lines that they are trying to get across to the viewer. For television, I think they try and get their message to their viewers with a different approach as to the others I mentioned above. In many cases, television shows have ongoing seasons, which show you a single plot per episode (sometimes more) and they try and leave you with that message until you watch the new episode (usually a week later)- so they have to lure you in.
For movies, I think it is very different because they have roughly 2 hours or so to get their whole message through and I think it can only be one director because if there were more than one director, their ideas would clash and make the movie's message less clear (television shows have various directors- either per season or per show).
So, I think television emerged as a producer's medium simply because it was the only choice.
Television is such an inclusive medium, making it necessary for someone to over look and be involved with aspects of every season and every episode as well. Because there are so many elements that make up a television series it is important for someone to preserve the ending vision or idea of what the show is supposed to be. This really lends itself to the producer who is able to do many jobs while keeping the end vision in sight. The reading says that television also give the producer a chance to not get caught up in the writing or direction while focusing on the vision of the show while simultaneously analyzing what content is best suited for its audience. Television is definitely a producers medium in that way.
Echoing a few of my classmates above, I feel like the reason why directors or writers are not the primary medium for television is because there is a fundamental difference in how television is created, and what its overarching goals are. To be more specific, whereas film and theater aim to tell a definitive story from start to finish, and often have much longer deadlines and budgets to work with, a television show needs to run like clockwork, meeting its much shorter deadlines efficiently and still contributing to an overarching plot as the season goes along. You're answering to very different expectations from your audience, studio, and sponsors.
Just take David Selznick's transition from film producer to television producer as an example. Selznick was a producer who believed the producer had to be an integral part of every aspect of production. He oversaw everything from each line of the script to the costuming. But even though he realized the danger of such an "artisanal approach", as his constant meddling with the script often kept his costs up and deadlines unmet, I believe his approach to television was still too overbearing. He wished for it to be an artistic medium for him to impart his film-making vision on, but underestimated the manpower and automation needed to keep a television program running.
Selznick never made another television show after "Light's Diamond Jubilee". Meanwhile, Walt Disney was successful in creating his first show, "Disneyland", a low-budget, "total merchandising" series, and took off from there, with other studios following suit. At the end of the day, the demands of a television series are extremely different than a film or play. The scheduling inflexibility of a live production forces you to keep moving and often take less risks from episode to episode, because there is no behind-the-scenes time for trial and error. You are constantly under the pressure that your show may be canceled, as you have to appeal to your ratings and keep your sponsors satisfied. It's not that Selznick's opinion about television needing to come from "individual producers of talent...not from assembly-line machines" was wrong--as we can see on television today, a producer's individual talent can completely alter a show for the better. It just isn't realistic given the demands and business model of television. That's why a producer who can keep a show running on target with both its schedule and overall plot, despite interchanging directors, DPs, etc., is best suited for spearheading a show.
I think the production process of movies and television is vastly different and the producer and director in each medium plays different roles as well. For television, the producer plays a heavier role than a producer in movies. It is their role to oversee the production and to make sure that the show follows its original intent or purpose. For television, the producer is allowed to separate themselves from the work of the director while at the same time overseeing the direction and outcome that the director proceeds in. Since the span of television series is much longer than a film, there needs to be a person to oversee the overarching goal or outcome of each series over the course of the production. There is a heavy influence of a producer's role in the making of a series because it is their duty to make sure that the series stays on track in regards to it's original story and intent. That is why television is much more a producer's medium than anything else.
In TV, the producers are the ones who have the most control. They decide who writes the script and how it is directed, and this causes everyone to attribute the success of shows to producers. Like everyone has mentioned, TV’s format involves long periods of time and multiple moving pieces, therefore the producer is one of the only constants in TV. This autonomy of the producer is thus comparable to the independence that a film director has, because a film follows the director’s vision. I also think this could be a reason why TV isn’t viewed as being as artistic as films, because a producer seems to be less of a creative roll and more of a business person managing ratings, cast members, and making sure the audience and all other stakeholders are happy.
I believe television turned into a producers medium because of the continuous change of plots and themes for the current audience's desire. Movies and plays are on repetition. Unlike television shows it takes years to film and be released and to hope the message of the movie gets across. Television can change each episode with a new message each time. This allows the audience to be on their toes more and request for more. Messages are more easily understood because the shows are quicker and don't have confusing twists as often. Television can also change to fit a certain audience or change with it's audience while movies have to be more broad to respect their larger audience. Movies also don't last long because people get tired of the repetition. They have seen it already, received the message and now want to move on. Television allows the complete opposite an ongoing desire for more.
As mentioned by others above, the main reason television is a producer's medium rather than a writer's or director's medium is primarily because it's so dynamic. While most shows will have an overarching story or premise that guides the show throughout it's seasons, each individual episode can have different writers or directors. Because television shows are much longer investments than movies or theater productions, audiences need more variety in what they're receiving. These new styles and viewpoints in episodic television is what helps to keep the show fresh and bring in more viewers while at the same time, it can also make the show risk being inconsistent. A primary example of a show where the change in writer brought down it's quality and ratings is Dexter. Following the fifth season, there was a writer change and many longtime fans of the show were not pleased with where it went. On the flip side, for a producer, they don't have to worry about the artistic vision so much as to them, they just really have to focus on how it's going to be made. They deal with the actors and deal with budget and contracts. Once they lay out their original idea or plan and it gets picked up, they're good.
When looking at why television is a producer's medium, I think it's important to look back at the birth of the medium itself. Moving away from vaudeville shows and into large, spectacular productions, the entire industry had a lot to figure out about what TV would end up being. As the film industry and contract laws changed in the late 1940's/early 1950's, studios had a lot of space to work with and needed a new way to make money. Studios started making money as production entities, but put the financial bourdon/risk on the producer. Just as app creators shoulder the risk in today's uncharted tech world, television producers became the idea pushers, leaving networks risk free.
I think the reason television seems to be a producer's medium, as opposed to a writer's or a director's, is clear when you look at the development of a cultural approach to what many consider to be the most popular media art form. Generally, it seems like television tends to overvalue what's popular and typically overlooks the more artsy end of the narrative. The roles of big players like directors and writers have kind of been minimized in recent years, and there isn't really a lot of discussion about the creative nature of work itself that goes on in the medium, like in film. Its fairly obvious that the producer is responsible for taking on the sort of central creative and administrative role in the commercial television workplace. Which, generally translates into the idea that the producer is the one working with the individuals or collaborative teams who create the series, as well as deals with the networks and production companies, and most importantly, hires and supervises the creative personnel. This is important for the reason that this includes the directors, and writers, who can be switched in and out per episode or per season, or basically anytime, while the overall production itself must remain consistent (under the direction of one producer) as mentioned in the comment above referencing the multiple directors and writers for the show "Dexter". Essentially, because television production is such a complex process and basically demands constant maintenance of the narrative operation by the producers, they ultimately become the most essential/critical player in any successful series.
Post a Comment